From Copenhagen to Geneva - Discussion on Exporting the Danish Bicycle Model

It's our great pleasure and honor to see numerous people, from all over the world, coming through the door of Copenhagenize's office, in order to meet us and have a chat about bicycle urbanism. For the Copenhagenize's team, it's always an opportunity to share our knowledge and experience. We explain the distinctives features of Copenhagen while learning the latest best practices from our visitors' cities. A few months ago, it's Clotilde, our French urban planner, who received Louis-Philippe Tessier, student in Environmental Sciences, who had just arrived from Geneva (Switzerland) to do fieldwork for his Master these.

It was the opportunity to get information on the cycling culture in Geneva and to know which best-practices Louis-Phillipe could bring back to Switzerland.

(article written by Louis-Philippe and Clotilde following their discussion)

The
2015 Velo-city conference, held this year in Nantes between June 2nd
and 5th, has one main objective: bringing together numerous experts
on “bicycle urbanism” from across the world so as to facilitate
the exchange of best practices and necessary knowledge to promote and
develop urban bicycle usage. For three days, participants will also
be able to let themselves be inspired and to take a breath of fresh
air in a world which is often polluted by negative thoughts. But a
question remains: are these transfers of knowledge even possible? Are
local authorities even receptive to foreign best practices?

Louis-Philippe’s Masters thesis partly sought to explore this theme. Its main goal was
to study Geneva’s cycling infrastructures and policies so as to
identify a certain number of elements hindering the development of
bicycle usage in this city. Ultimately, the recommendations put
forward in the thesis were inspired from a number of best practices
taken from Copenhagen.

Possessing
numerous years of expertise in the field, Copenhagen has become a
model for cities across the world wishing to promote bicycle use
amongst their citizens. To each obstacles identified in Geneva,
Copenhagen could provide proven solutions.

Concerning the first one,
the nordic city would promote its communication strategy aimed at
reinforcing the positive aspects of cycling in cities, which is very
well presented in its official Bicycle
Strategy. As Stefan Gössling puts it, by reading
this document one understands that cycling “is pleasurable for
everyone.” (2013, p. 201).

Responding to the second obstacle,
Danish planners would suggest that it is more economically sound to
replace car parking by separated bike lanes or bicycle parking spots.
If one car can fit on one parking spot, there can be up to eight
bicycles parked there, which represents more potential customers to
nearby shops. In Geneva, a local law states that any removed car
parking must be replaced in the vicinity. If one also takes into
account the cost of acquiring the space needed for this new parking
spot, one is left with a messy bureaucratic and political bottleneck.

The third obstacle concerns the way urban planners develop the
cycling network. Rather than drafting a concrete and detailed bicycle
plan for the city, they very (too) often grab the opportunities
passing under their noses. This means, on the one hand, that they
need to be continuously aware of developments occurring throughout
the city, but it also means that the cycling network ultimately
becomes like a Swiss cheese: full of wholes. What they don’t tell
you is that Swiss cheese in fact does not contain any holes;
it’s just a misconception. Similarly, a good bicycle network should
not have any holes.One
picture of Copenhagenize’s Traffic Planning Guide II reminds us
of that!

Coming
back to the initial question of this article, it helps to look now at
obstacle #4. When Geneva’s bicycle strategy was being voted in
2013, one deputy, who was explaining why the modal share of bicycles
in Copenhagen was so high, was interrupted by voices shouting that
the city was flatter than Geneva. In other words, according to them,
it is not possible to transfer Copenhagen’s model because of the
specific topography of the city. On one point they are right: every
city is unique, facing different kinds of challenges and obliged to
implement solutions adapted to the socio-politico-economic
conditions. But this is not to say that planners cannot be inspired
by foreign best practices. In fact, it has often been the case.
Today’s cities are good examples since most of them were deeply and
similarly transformed in the 50s and 60s by the automobile. Best
practices can be exported to other cities as long as they respond to
specific needs by local cyclists. One such example is Trondheim’s
bicycle lift, which acts as an elevator helping cyclists go up a
steep hill. Another one is, more generally, San
Francisco’s increasing bicycle modal share, which could be
attributed to the implementation of foreign best practices at certain
intersections throughout the city (SFMTA,
2013, p. 6). San Francisco being a hilly city, this shows how
geographical features may not have the same importance as the social,
political, and economic context when developing a cycling city.

Urban
density is one such element which can be very unique to cities. With
environmental problems becoming more apparent, and urban populations
continuously growing, many cities have began to densify.
In highly dense cities such as Geneva, numerous actors often declare
that few things can be done to improve transport conditions. Space
scarcity is often the culprit. It is true that there are only a
limited amount of users which can use a specific road. But is it more
a question of space, or rather a question of which transportation
mode should be prioritised in cities? Can a road lane be converted
into a separated bike lane? Of course! What may vary between cities
is the degree of political will to retrofit the urban landscape so as
to prioritise more sustainable modes of transportation, in this case
the bicycle. We are far from Copenhagen’s “Cyclists first”
policy. But ultimately, as Andersen et al. declare, “all things
being equal, urban density increases bicycle traffic“ (Andersen et
al., 2012, p. 40). Thus, our politicians should really focus on
finding adapted solutions to the urban density problem, rather than
feeding the idea that their cities are not adapted to the bicycle.

This
debate raises another question: is
there an optimal urban density to efficiently develop safe,
continuous and comfortable bicycle infrastructures?
It is difficult to answer such a question since we are not only
talking about technical details pertaining to physical
infrastructures, but we are also addressing the ways that politics is
conducted in every city. The nature of the arbitration between the
actors directly and indirectly involved in the mobility system of a
city, is crucial to take into consideration when on seeks to import
best practices from cities such as Copenhagen. Solutions are manifold
and come from various places across the world; this is one of the
reason why the Velo-city
conference is such an important event for urban planners. Here are
some examples taken from Copenhagen, which were contrasted to
challenges still existing in Geneva (in French):

Ultimately,
transferring knowledge and best practices is important but a
particular focus should be put on understanding how politics is being
conducted, and what elements strongly influence the planning process.
Not doing so puts us at risk of being told that the city is not flat
enough!

Kilometres cycled by Copenhageners so far today

Copenhagenize.com is the blog of Copenhagenize Design Company. Online since 2007 and highlighting the cycling life in Copenhagen and around the world.

40 years ago Copenhagen was just as car-clogged as anywhere else but now 41% of the population arriving at work or education do so on bicycles, from all over the Metro area. 56% of Copenhageners themselves use bicycles each day. They all use over 1000 km of bicycle lanes in Greater Copenhagen for their journeys. Copenhagenizing is possible anywhere.